As outlined in Proposed Next Steps for RGP Proposal, the Governance Working Group has recently come to the conclusion that the participation requirements for Formal Reviews and On-Chain Governance Proposals should be re-evaluated as they are ineffective and ill-fit for the reality of Radicle governance.
According to our governance process, there is a 4%(of total RAD supply) participation requirement for passing Formal Reviews (Snapshot polls) and Governance Proposals (on-chain) This means that for a proposal to pass a formal review (step 3) and an on-chain governance proposal (step 4), it must receive at least 4M votes. There is also a 1% of total supply threshold for creating on-chain proposals.
While the governance parameters around Compound governance are tried and true, in reality these participation requirements might not be as finely tuned to Radicle governance as we once believed. With 50% of RAD token supply locked in the Radicle Treasury and a large percentage locked in vesting contracts (with early contributors & team members), the actual supply that can be used in governance is much lower than total token supply. Therefore, a participation threshold based on total supply instead of the actual available supply arguably sets too high a bar for measuring consensus, resulting in governance gridlock.
We believe these participation requirements could hinder Radicle governance in the long-term, making it harder to move proposals forward even if they are well-developed and have substantial community consensus. We’ve also seen similar discussions played out in other governance ecosystems. Compound lowered their proposal threshold and Uniswap did the same.
As we’re starting to activate the Radicle Treasury, we believe it’s important to surface issues that could potential hinder healthy & effective governance in the future.
The following questions are meant to start a discussion within our community about how we envision healthy & active participation in the Radicle governance process. These questions are only a starting point and I hope to see more arise from our discussions.
- How can we evaluate the actual supply of tokens that are active and available for governance participation?
- What are realistic voting requirements for ensuring effective participation in formal reviews and on-chain proposals?
- Do we need to adjust the proposal threshold (# of RAD needed to submit an on-chain proposal)as well?
I hope that this discussion will also get us thinking on how we can improve participation through delegation, accessibility, education etc…
We will plan on discussing this Temperature Check next week in the monthly wg meeting, but please be sure to share your feedback, suggestions, and ideas here so we can get the discussion rolling